US AIRSTRIKE KILLS AT LEAST 18 CHILDREN

[jimboloco]

Why the fuck do you think I got out of the AirFarce?


another night i cannot sleep, wired again, after early evening extreme fatigue.


Somebody once tried to tell me that "the best stayed in," an otherwise helpful psychologist at the Vet Center, his own pathos shining through. Why yes ladies, I fly jets.

Who wants to kill kids for a lie? What rationalization will appease the families of these innocents? How do you think the anguished psychosis of these peoples will allow them to rationalize it all? Not I. It is only the inflated American public, who cannot feel the pain, because they are inured to it,after all, "Off we go into the wild blue yonder, sailing high into the sun. Nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force" , duh.


Oh yeah, I've been killing Vietnamese for years now, my legacy the land mines we ferried throughout II and III Corps, 35 years ago, delivered and signed for. I'll scan an old photo of me in front of my chosen vehicle for this homicide, it is on my little altar by my bed, something to while away the blues.

[microbe]

Wait didn't the British stay in Iraq for a while????

Not only that but "Bomber" Harris got in some practice there using chemical weapons on villagers - something Churchill approved of and which is recorded in Hansard, the parliamentary record in Britain. The British drew much of the map of that area. Maybe it is time to get the pencil out again.

[jimboloco]

if one believes this is all part of some empire-building ruse to get in and control the area, riddled with misinformation, then i can understand the desire to get out now

i just don't believe the central tenet of that argument...part of that is because i don't think the powers-that-be are that smart or forward-looking

just incredulous. so you are saying that bushco and the neo-cons are not smart enough to have imperial designs? of course they won't say that or admit it, especially to themselves,but the process, hey, it's a doozie.
by the way, our "control" of the area is dependent upon more airstrikes, in perpetuity/ enjoy. oh, lets just throw up our hands and support the war, make excuses for the civilian deaths, blame the fucking insurgents and have at it. and to hell with anybody who gets in our way. oh, it will all be good after awhile. now i can sleep and enjoy my dreams of all the nice things our heroic fly-boys are doing to protect our freedom.

fuck i can't sleep tonite.

it seems to me that some people don't get it, regardless of their having been in a combat zone or not, and some do, regardless of their having been in a combat zone or not.

there is also a density factor.

[knip]

there is also a certain level of 'believing what one wants to believe', because there is little absolute truth here

which implies i could be wrong, i freely admit

[Dave The Dov]

This be said of Afghanistan and any where else as well!!!!
_________________
Acura TSX

[mnaz]

There may be no absolute truth, but there is a reality on the ground in Iraq which only gets uglier as time goes on.

Like I said.

1. There is evidence pointing toward the Bush Admin.'s long-term imperial/military designs in Iraq.

2. There is evidence pointing to increased Iraqi resistance to the above, and to the extended occupation, in general.

3. The current strategy (to 'defeat' the insurgency, using full troop strength) has not worked for nearly two years now. In fact, evidence suggests that the insurgency is only getting stronger, largely in response to points 1. and 2. (overbearing, open-ended occupation).

4. Therefore, in light of point 3., a change in strategy is warranted. A reduction in the problematic U.S. occupation, in the form a troop drawdown, starting now, seems appropriate, since, again, we have tried the current, overblown strategy for a long time now, and it is not working.

5. This does not mean 'abandonment'. If conditions worsened significantly, troops could be redeployed.

6. Caveat: All of the above depends on Bushco's true intentions for Iraq. Bush needs to back his lofty rhetoric about Iraqi freedom with real actions which clearly demonstrate he does not seek to make Iraq a U.S. client state. He needs to demonstrate his good faith intentions regarding Iraqi sovereignty.

Uhhh... he is acting in good faith, isn't he? He couldn't possibly have lied to us all about his true intentions, could he?

[knip]

i simply cannot buy the 'get out, and if XXXX number of folks are salughtered, then get back in' approach

[mnaz]

Fair enough. But how is it any worse than the long-running 'stay in, and if XXXX number of folks are slaughtered, then stay in, anyway' approach?

Again, you assume that the extended occupation, seemingly without end, benefits the Iraqi people more than it hurts them.

How do we know this?

Perhaps this should have been on the ballot.

[Dave The Dov]

Did we learn in Vietnam no!!!!

Are we going to learn in Iraq no!!!!

Arrrgggghhhh when are we going to learn then????
_________________
Addison's Disease Forum

[jimboloco]

there is also a certain level of 'believing what one wants to believe', because there is little absolute truth here

Anyhow, here again Knipster, you is trying to justify the occupation in terms of the aftermath of our withdrawal.
Plan A: we stay
Plan B: we leave


risks and rewards

A: BushCo will continue to reap the profits of our capital intensive contracts in Iraq. American soldiers will continue to be killed and wounded. Iraqi civilians will continue to be killed both by American military actions and by insurgent actions.
A pseudo-Iraqi government will operate more or less successfully without successfully rebuilding an infrastructure that is competant. Meanwhile the IMF will structure the Iraqi economy to suit the needs of the global corporations and their minions.

B. There will be possible nationalization of the oil fields. American soldiers will be spared death or being wounded. Iraqi civilians will no longer be killed by American military actions. The real issue here is the unknown, that is, what will happen in the aftermath of American withdrawal. Will there be a bloodbath? So we stay and some folks keep getting richer while young people die. Oh of course BushCo might lose some contracts as well.

i simply cannot buy the 'get out, and if XXXX number of folks are salughtered, then get back in' approach

would folks have been slaughtered if the idiots had not invaded in the first place? many folks DID get slaughtered in the invasion and continuing occupation, by the idiot Americans and their pet poodle Brits and their minions. so what is this crapola about us worring about the poor Iraqis gonna get slaughtered if'n we get the hell out?
an if'n we ever do get out of Iraq, why on earth would we wanna get back in again? We have already lost our credibility.THAT SIMPLY IS NOT A CREDIBLE PREMISE.

on my way to Vietnam, summer of 1970, Dyess AFB, Abeline< Texas. Already the class pinko. Was pickin up daid dudes soon after, amigo. as I said, there is a density factor.

[mnaz]

I suppose I should drop out of the discussion at this point. The problem is, we're all putting forth our points with incomplete information. For example, I should try and do more research on the current size and makeup of the insurgency. And I should try to find out more about the new bases being built.... a little more research to back up my points and suspicions. Problem is, info may be sketchy, or nonexistent, on these sensitive topics, but I should make the attempt anyway.

I just don't want to stay with a destructive, bloody policy that is failing, if there are other options available, especially if this destructive policy is ultimately motivated by the wrong reasons.... by greed, as opposed to a genuine concern for Iraqi welfare.

That's all. That's all I'm trying to put out there.

[jimboloco]

The problem is, we're all putting forth our points with incomplete information. For example, I should try and do more research on the current size and makeup of the insurgency. And I should try to find out more about the new bases being built.... a little more research to back up my points and suspicions.

Don't undermine your own perceptions.

[mnaz]

The truth eventually comes out. Even some of the old Vietnam hawks now admit its ill-conceived futility and tragic error.

In the case of Iraq, let's hope we don't push it as disastrously far as Vietnam, and let's hope we are much quicker learners this time.

knip, surely you might concede that, historically, foreign occupying armies are largely despised by the nations they occupy, especially if it's long term. Right?

[knip]

yup

but i'm not saying this is an occupation, either

[mnaz]

in everything but name....